JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Nath, learned standing counsel for the P & RD Department, respondents No. 1 and 2 and also heard Mrs. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. With the consent of consent of the parties, this writ has been taken up for hearing at the admission stage on the ground that the issue involved in the present writ petition relates to settlement of market for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019, out of which only five months is now left for operating the said market. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Gabhoru Anchalik Panchayat (respondent No.4) had issued a NIT dated 29.05.2018 for settlement of various markets including the Panchmile Daily Market. Five bidders have participated in the said tender process, where there were three valid bidders/ tenderers out of five tenderers including the petitioner, the respondent No.5 as well as one Kabol Sarkar. It is projected that while the bid amount of Kabol Sarkar was Rs.7,91,000/-, the bid of the petitioner was Rs.4,10,000/-and that of respondent No.5, namely, Akkas Ali was Rs.1,11,786/-. The date of opening of the tender was 15.06.2018, which was re-scheduled to 22.06.2018 and on the opening of the tenders, the comparative statement was prepared by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zila Parishad on 28.06.2018. It is further projected that while the petitioner being the second highest tenderer, had a legitimate expectation for being settled with the said market as the highest bidder has expressed his unwillingness to get the settlement of market. However, on 15.09.2018, the petitioner had come to know that the market was already settled with the respondent No.5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner made enquiry, he came to learn that a letter dated 30.08.2018 was purportedly issued to the petitioner by the Sonitpur Zila Parishad, Tezpur to complete formalities for issuance of settlement order and as no response was received by him, the market was settled with Akkas Ali, the respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner made enquiry, he came to learn that a letter dated 30.08.2018 was purportedly issued to the petitioner by the Sonitpur Zila Parishad, Tezpur to complete formalities for issuance of settlement order and as no response was received by him, the market was settled with Akkas Ali, the respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that no such notice dated 30.08.2018 was ever served on the petitioner by the Sontipur Zila Parishad and accordingly, claiming that the settlement of market with the respondent No. 5 was not tenable, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mrs. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has produced the relevant records, which reveals that as per comparative statement, the petitioner was the second valid tenderer. She also submits that she has no other record except the comparative statement, the order of settlement passed on 30.08.2018 as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner on 14.09.2018. 6. Mr. M. Nath, learned standing counsel for the P & RD Department has submitted that he is in receipt of para wise comment from the Sonitur Zila Parishad, which was produced before this Court. On perusal of the same, it appears that the instructions were given that the petitioner had submitted a fixed deposit receipt without endorsing it in the name of the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zila Parishad, which was in violation of the NIT and the said fact came to their notice only after re-verification of the tender document on complaint made by the respondent No.5 on 03.09.2018. The further instructions are to be effect that the selection order bearing No. SZP 7/2018-19/3071 dated 30.08.2018 was served on one Nur Hussain, uncle of the petitioner, who had received the same after signing in the order issue register and therefore, instruction was given that the allegation of non-receipt of the selection order by the petitioner was baseless and to misguide this Court. The said para wise comment is retained on record. 7. The said para wise comment is retained on record. 7. On a consideration of all the materials available on record, it is seen that sub-Rule 11 of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 requires that on acceptance of that tender, the Panchayat concerned shall inform the selected tenderers concerned requiring the tenderers to submit the requisite within seven days from the date of issuing of acceptance letter. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court that service of notice on the “uncle” of the tenderers would be a good service of notice of the “tenderers concerned”. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.2 i.e. Sonitpur Zila Parishad, Tezpur could not have relied on service of notice dated 30.08.2018 on one Nur Hussain to be a due service of notice on the petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that the person receiving the said notice was an agent or otherwise duly authorized to receive the said notice or that he was a member of the household of the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstances, the deeming of service of notice dated 30.08.2018 on the petitioner is not sustainable and accordingly, the selection of respondent No.5 vide Memo No. SZP 7/2017-18 dated 14.09.2018 in favour of the respondent No.5, namely, Akkas Ali is liable to be interfered with. At the same time it is made clear that as there is no fault on part of the private respondent No.5, namely, Akkas Ali, it is hoped that the Sonitpur Zila Parishad shall not penalize the respondent No.5 in any manner whatsoever in connection with the settlement order dated 14.09.2018. Accordingly, while setting aside the said order No. SZP 7/2017-18 dated 14.09.2018, the Sonitpur Zila Parishad is directed to settle the Panchmile Daily Market to the petitioner for the remaining period of the market at the proportionate tender amount. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Needful shall be done within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. Except for the para wise comments by the Sonitpur Zila Parishad, all other records produced by the learned standing counsel for the P & RD Department and by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 are returned back.